Posted on 11/01/2005 12:40:15 AM PST by RWR8189
If I recall correctly, Saad was the only one who was definitely thrown overboard by the Republicans.
He is still in Committee. The only way the nomination can be "definitely thrown overboard" is for the President to withdraw it, or the Senate to return it to the President. Neither of those has happened with Saad. More on Saad below ...
In any event, the three most controversial of the bunch, Brown, Owen, and Pryor, WERE confirmed quickly and without fuss following announcement of "the deal".
Those were/are not the most controversial. They were the ones negotiated to an up or down vote by the gang of 14. Aas you noted, Saad is controversial, and I think Myers is also quite controversial.
Of the Circuit Court nominations remaining, my personal opinion of the "rank order" from least contentious to most likely to trigger the nuclear option goes something like this:
[REID - May 12, 2005] Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway. He is one of those nominees. All one needs to do is have a Member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there.
109th Congress - Page S5030 - May 12, 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1401701/posts?page=1996#1996
"I just knew there was a file, I wanted to see the file and, you know, convince myself that there was nothing in that file that ought to impede his ability to be a federal circuit court judge, which is a lifetime appointment," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Saad Unlikely to See Confirmation Vote - May 29, 2005
At Collins' suggestion, their names [Haynes & Kavanaugh], as well as those of McKeague, Griffin and Neilson, were dropped from the document.
I take the deliberate mention of "no promise to vote for cloture for Saad" as a strong negative signal, both because his name is mentioned (as is Myers) and because, unlike Myers, his nomination was still in committee. It is interesting that the MOU is inconsistent - it assigns Saad to Part I (currently pending) while his nomination was yet to be acted on by the Judiciary Committee.
"This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senates Judiciary Committee."
I think this anomoly is insignificant because I view the MOU as a political tool, not as a contract. Every Senator will use the language of the MOU to personal advantage.
Dewine will vote for Alito because he knows to do otherwise will end his Senate career. That's one RINO down.
Time to put the RINO's feet to the fire on this one.
Mike DeWine on Hugh Hewitt
Radioblogger ^ | 10/31/05 | Mike DeWine / Hugh Hewitt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513318/posts
Thanks for your reply.
One of those, the Family Research Council from Washington, said DeWine had taken a "step in the right direction" and showed the weakness of the coalition, known as the Gang of 14.
"It's probably the result of hearing from his constituents," said council president Tony Perkins.
Wrong ...
Here's something about Graham but it applies equally to DeWine:
"I heard Graham speaking about the MoU IMMEDIATELY after it was announced. He was very, very aware that his conservative supporters would be vocal in their opposition to his taking part in the gang. He EXPECTED the phone lines and fax machines to be burning up with their opposition.
"Nevertheless, he did it because HE BELIEVED it was the RIGHT thing to do, and that the Senate would operate more smoothly this session if the nuke did not have to be resorted to.
"His explaining NOW is not something being done only in retrospect: he was well aware that his conservative supporters would strongly question his judgement. He asked that they watch, wait and see if that judgement was good or bad. Thus far, the results have been good and no filibuster has been attempt by the Senate on judicial nominations.
"Agree or disagree with his decision in this case, he followed through on what he believed to be right and for the good of the country. I commend any politician who does this, and who refuses to be governed by polls. We don't elect them to blindly follow OUR orders, but to do what THEY believe to be right. That is why integrity is the single most important quality for an elected official, and why I was so opposed to the 'Toon.
"(Other FReepers have told me that DeWine was similarly immediate with his response after the MoU, but I can't personally vouch for him.) If you take a look at the way these two are rated by almost any conservative organization, on nearly every issue, you'll find they almost invariably top the list of good Senators. These two are definitely not RINOs.
"Much like Ron Paul, who often breaks with the "R" leadership and whose judgement I similarly find questionable at times, I applaud this type of personal responsibility for their voting. This type of principled independence has to be applauded (unlike the continual grandstanding that McCain does just to get the accolades of the Old Media) and our support should not waiver when they, who are in the middle of the stewpot, choose to do something because they believe they can see better through the murkiness than those of us who are not in the middle of the situation.
"I reiterate: I personally will vouch that the "explaining done since" by Graham was immediate, well before the publicity accompanying the MoU, and not in response to the outcry of the conservative base."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513219/posts?page=9#9
It is disturbing to me that someone from the very well respected Family Research Council would propagate such mythology implying that DeWine (or Graham) have changed their approach to the Constitutional Option, or that they in any way have reconsidered their "gang of 14" membership simply because of constituent pressure.
"I would think that a good gauge of "extraordinary circumstance" is that it represents a judge that the Congress would entertain impeachment proceedings against."
Great observation, and I totally agree with that gauge!
That's not true. See post#46
He just said, they can't, and thats going to be that.
They will not be able to filibuster. If they do, the nuclear option WILL be instituted.
Oh, I do agree the nuke would be tried... whether it succeeds or not depends in large part on Specter. That does NOT make me comfortable at all. That is why I hope it is not necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.